From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Aug 23 17:25:57 2012
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37840106566B;
	Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:25:57 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from luigi@onelab2.iet.unipi.it)
Received: from onelab2.iet.unipi.it (onelab2.iet.unipi.it [131.114.59.238])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70E058FC0C;
	Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:25:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by onelab2.iet.unipi.it (Postfix, from userid 275)
	id EF5DE7300A; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:45:04 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 19:45:04 +0200
From: Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>
To: Alan Cox <alc@rice.edu>
Message-ID: <20120823174504.GB4820@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
References: <20120822120105.GA63763@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
	<CAJUyCcPOte19TJXpCVAskhf+Dia_Zg5uj6J_idW67rGsOLaZXw@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120823163145.GA3999@onelab2.iet.unipi.it>
	<50366398.2070700@rice.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <50366398.2070700@rice.edu>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i
Cc: alc@freebsd.org, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: less aggressive contigmalloc ?
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 17:25:57 -0000

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:08:40PM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
...
> >yes i do see that.
> >
> >Maybe less aggressive with M_NOWAIT but still kills processes.
> 
> Are you compiling world with MALLOC_PRODUCTION?  The latest version of 

whatever the default is. But:

> jemalloc uses significantly more memory when debugging options are 
> enabled.  This first came up in a thread titled "10-CURRENT and swap 
> usage" back in June.
> 
> Even at its most aggressive, M_WAITOK, contigmalloc() does not directly 
> kill processes.  If process death coincides with the use of 
> contigmalloc(), then it is simply the result of earlier, successful 
> contigmalloc() calls, or for that matter any other physical memory 
> allocation calls, having depleted the pool of free pages to the point 
> that the page daemon runs and invokes vm_pageout_oom().

does it mean that those previous allocations relied on memory overbooking ?
Is there a way to avoid that, then ?

cheers
luigi